5 ms·

Typical science reporting: “we couldn’t prove x causes y” becomes “we proved x does not cause y”.

sirclueless 8y ago
The reporter doesn't make any claims like that. The word "prove" or "proof" don't appear at all. Instead they say, "The findings do not support the learning styles concept," and "Student grade performance was not correlated in any meaningful way with their dominant learning style or with any learning style(s) they scored highly on." If there's a complaint to be had here, it's that the HN poster changed the word "did" to "do" in the headline while posting here.
- rectang 8y ago
  > the HN poster changed the word "did" to "do" in the headline Well spotted! That's a pretty misleading change.
  - dang 8y ago
    Probably because the 80 char limit kicked in. But we can squeeze in "did" by squeezing out "their".
    - empath75 8y ago
      Yeah I was 1 character over the limit.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      Could someone add (2015) to the story linked below? It seems to have been overlooked, and the title is otherwise misleading about an alarming topic. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17112746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17112746
      - dang 8y ago
        I've added it. But please don't post off-topic comments to get our attention. Email hn@ycombinator.com instead. This is in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
        forapurpose 8y ago
        OK, will do.
vorg 8y ago
> “Another nail in the coffin for learning styles” – students did not benefit from studying according to their supposed learning style > By Christian Jarrett > The idea that we learn better when taught via our preferred modality or “learning style” – such as visually, orally, or by doing – is not supported by evidence. Specifically, x is "when taught via our preferred modality", and y is "we learn better". The first sentence of the article gets it right, but the headline is where the false leap of logic occurs. Perhaps the headline-writer is a different person to the article-writer. Edit: As pointed out by sirclueless, the headline was further distorted by empath75 when posted on HN.
ddtaylor 8y ago
It's hard to justify funding if "all you're doing" is in/validating or peer-reviewing work so it gets repackaged at a breakthrough =(

The reporter doesn't make any claims like that. The word "prove" or "proof" don't appear at all. Instead they say, "The findings do not support the learning styles concept," and "Student grade performance was not correlated in any meaningful way with their dominant learning style or with any learning style(s) they scored highly on." If there's a complaint to be had here, it's that the HN poster changed the word "did" to "do" in the headline while posting here.

rectang 8y ago
> the HN poster changed the word "did" to "do" in the headline Well spotted! That's a pretty misleading change.
- dang 8y ago
  Probably because the 80 char limit kicked in. But we can squeeze in "did" by squeezing out "their".
  - empath75 8y ago
    Yeah I was 1 character over the limit.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Could someone add (2015) to the story linked below? It seems to have been overlooked, and the title is otherwise misleading about an alarming topic. Thanks. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17112746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17112746
    - dang 8y ago
      I've added it. But please don't post off-topic comments to get our attention. Email hn@ycombinator.com instead. This is in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        OK, will do.

vorg 8y ago

> “Another nail in the coffin for learning styles” – students did not benefit from studying according to their supposed learning style > By Christian Jarrett > The idea that we learn better when taught via our preferred modality or “learning style” – such as visually, orally, or by doing – is not supported by evidence. Specifically, x is "when taught via our preferred modality", and y is "we learn better". The first sentence of the article gets it right, but the headline is where the false leap of logic occurs. Perhaps the headline-writer is a different person to the article-writer. Edit: As pointed out by sirclueless, the headline was further distorted by empath75 when posted on HN.

ddtaylor 8y ago

It's hard to justify funding if "all you're doing" is in/validating or peer-reviewing work so it gets repackaged at a breakthrough =(